Hicks: Higher-ups at State told me not to talk to GOP congressman about Benghazi; Update: “Effectively demoted”

posted at 3:21 pm on May 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via the Daily Caller, the five most essential, damning minutes from today’s hearing. And Jordan does an expert job framing them. The money line, when Hicks is asked whether he’d ever been told before not to meet with a congressional delegation: “Never.”

I won’t slow you down with further comment. None is needed — except this: Cheryl Mills is no run-of-the-mill State Department apparatchik, even among the top tier. She’s been one of the Clintons’ right-hand men for decades. She worked in Bill’s White House legal office, then as counsel to Hillary’s presidential campaign, then became chief of staff at State when Hillary was appointed secretary. If she’s the right-hand man, what other conclusion is there than that Hillary’s the one who wanted Hicks to keep his mouth shut when meeting with Chaffetz?

One last point, per today’s theme of ghettoized media. As I say, these five minutes are obviously the biggest news to come out of today’s hearings (so far). Note that, then note tomorrow how many news outlets spend any time on them vis-a-vis other ancillary issues from the testimony. For instance, Politico’s lead story as of 2:45 ET is … “Benghazi hearing gets emotional.”

Update: As of 3:30 ET, Hicks just told the panel that he was “effectively demoted” after challenging State’s leadership about its handling of Benghazi. Of course he was. How else could they discredit him later?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Sadly Benghazi was ,figuratively speaking, demoted to page 33 in the tabloids (even by Fox News)by a highly sensational murder trial verdict and an equally bombastic kidnapping-rape arrest. Although these two titillating stories had fortuitous, feel good results, they have no more effect on our nation’s destiny and security than a frog fart.Yet they both buried the far more important Benghazi coverup and extortion– which does not augur well for any substantive corrections and prosecutions coming from these hearings.Of course, a MSM in the tank for Obama, would not have adequately covered the hearings anyway but Fox’s relegating Benghazi to the “back pages” tells you all you need to know about the American public–Fox is ratings driven 24/7 and they knew they would lose market share by covering the more crucial story.

Well Jon Stewart says we are all being silly because attacks like this occurred under Bush and yet there were no hearings or dramatic coverage on FNC. So there. How brain dead is his audience? Or how does he view them? It’s the cover up. It’s always the coverup. That is the problem.

To me one of the seminal moments was when talking points woman speirer asked Hicks “if he could be stationed anywhere in the world where would it be.”
She had ask him twice. Few caught on the threat of “do as we say or you go to Siberia.” But it was a direct threat form the Chicago thuggery if you know how they play the game.

Well Jon Stewart says we are all being silly because attacks like this occurred under Bush and yet there were no hearings or dramatic coverage on FNC.

Question for Stewart – what attacks like this occurred under Bush with no hearings afterwards?

Seven hour sustained attacks (which could have lasted longer for all anyone in DC knew when they refused to send help), missing and then dead ambassadors, with no help from anyone on the ground, in the middle of an election?

Seriously, I want to know.

Sure, there have been bombs, where it’s a blast or two and then over. And yes, people have been killed by those bombs.

But sustained attack from armed terrorists? Ambassadors with almost no security killed and dragged through the streets? On the anniversary of 9/11 when boosted security ought to have been an no-brainer?

But sustained attack from armed terrorists? Ambassadors with almost no security killed and dragged through the streets? On the anniversary of 9/11 when boosted security ought to have been an no-brainer?

I really want to hear about these.

Missy on May 9, 2013 at 9:18 AM

How on earth do you know that American bodies were never dragged through the street after bombings under Bush? Stewart’s segment made you all look like fools, and I’m glad you’ve all seen it.

Subpoena both Hillary & Rice, confront them with the proof of their lies, charge Hillary with Felony Crimes of Perjury as she lied last time while under oath (do so with Rice if she testified last time and also lied under oath), & begin Impeachment proceedings immediately!

blockquote>Except that there aren’t really any cover ups, just lots of conjecture.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Yes, there is. They lied about who changed Rice’s talking points.

How on earth can you deny this? Are you deliberately keeping your head in the sand?

blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:09 AM

It was PROVEN FURTHER yesterday that Ambassador Stevens HIMSELF passed on at the start of the THIRD terrorist attack against him that the attack was indeed a TERRORIST ATTACK – “We are under ATTACK”! This was passed on by one of the witnesses to the State Department / the WH before contacting the military attache, the Libyan Govt POC, and the Libyan Military POC to request assistance. The State Dept ws contacted & notified of the ATTACK at 3am Libya time – 9pm Washington DC time

It was proven FURTHER yesterday that the administration knew inside of 12 hours that this was a terrorist attack, the identity of the group that perpetrated it & was claiming responsibility.

It was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that a CIA report was sent via CABLE explicitly calling this a terrorist attack & providing much detail – we know the administration then edited that report no less than 3 times, stripping out every reference to terrorism or a terrorist attack. We KNOW that the administration – OBAMA, Hillary, & Rice along with others – were shoveling the BS ‘video’ LIE WEEKS AFTER THE ATTACK!

These 3 men yesterday proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that 1) this whole Benghazi story coming out of the White House – which Obama himself participated in by insisting it was over a video weeks after the attack – was a calculated conspiratorial LIE to cover up what went on in Benghazi to shelter Obama from the event & protect his re-election chances. Even more heinous, it proved Americans who fought for their lives for hours while waiting for help to come were abandoned – BETRAYED – LEFT TO DIE, that there were assets available & closer that could have responded & that there WAS a ‘stand down’ order given! Opposed to the Lie the administration told, the Libyan Govt was never contacted to coordinate approval through Libyan airspace to go to the rescue in Benghazi!

The very President who promised to find out who did this & make them pay, to find out the truth so this would never happen again,is the man responsible for the lack of security, the death of Stevens, the abandoning / betrayal of 3 Americans, & the top man in this massive coverup! DESPICABLE…and IMPEACHABLE!

How on earth do you know that American bodies were never dragged through the street after bombings under Bush?

libfreeordie on May 9, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Mostly because we also have the reports from those events, and no one was working their butts off to cover up what happened, or deny the terrorist nature of the attack.

Also, most of the “attacks” that took place, no one was killed and in more than a few of them there were not even any injuries.

Also, it is a lie to say this is the one and only attack. Those who claim thus are deliberately leaving numerous attacks out of the count for arbitrary reasons, and in focusing on embassy attacks they are further ignoring the number of attempts here at home, most of which were thwarted by dumb luck.

Well Jon Stewart says we are all being silly because attacks like this occurred under Bush and yet there were no hearings or dramatic coverage on FNC. So there. How brain dead is his audience? Or how does he view them? It’s the cover up. It’s always the coverup. That is the problem.

MechanicalBill on May 8, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Can Jon Stewart name one ambassador killed on Bush’s watch? Um…I thought so. He’s a washed out comedian who’s getting old and unfunny, he’s following so close into Letterman’s steps that it’s almost sad…